Agenda item - BH2023/00127 - 8 The Upper Drive, Hove - Householder Planning Consent

1.         The Planning Manager introduced the application to the committee. The case officer informed the committee that a late representation had been received from the agent.

Speakers

2.         Ward Councillor Allcock addressed the committee and stated that DM20 of the City Plan Part Two covered the impact on neighbours and considered that the design guide covered the same issues. Neighbours have the right to enjoy amenities and should not be overlooked or have an overbearing development next door. The application property has an existing ground floor side extension. The proposed first floor extension will create a loss of light and privacy. Flats to the rear will be overlooked. The scheme does not comply to policy. The committee were requested to refuse the application.

3.         Shallen Meata addressed the committee as an objecting resident and stated that the scheme was materially the same as before and the Ward Councillors objections still stand. The extension adds mass and height to the dwelling, removing the sense of openness. The proposals will lead to overlooking and a loss of privacy due to the higher elevation of the property. The development will harm multiple properties, as the applicant has not consulted the neighbours.

4.         Colm McKee addressed the committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant stated that the application was set back from the boundary and was not materially the same as the previous scheme. The proposals would be the lowest on the street. The applicant did not need to consult the neighbours as the council planning team were responsible for consultations. The neighbour will be 18m away from the side elevation window on the first floor. Due to the angle of the scheme, overshadowing will not be possible. The 450 test concluded there was no impact. The scheme is fully compliant with policy.

5.         The Planning Manager noted that the reasons for the development were not relevant, there was a presumption in favour of sustainable development and the SPD was a design guide, not policy and therefore did not need to be strictly followed.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

6.         Councillor Moonan was informed there no existing side elevation windows and the three proposed windows were high level to serve stairs and two toilets.

7.         Councillor Appich was informed by the case officer that the first floor extension will be set back from the boundary by 0.8m. The fenestration will be 1.7m above ground level and there is no condition to retain the new windows as opaque and non-opening. The roof height will be 7.2m with an eaves height of 6m.

Debate

8.         Councillor Theobald noted that most of the properties in the road have been extended. The councillor supported the application.

9.         Councillor Moonan considered the extension to be in proportion and in keeping with the street. The councillor supported the application.

10.      Councillor Hugh-Jones noted this was not the only extension in the street. The councillor supported the application.

11.      Councillor Appich proposed a condition to have the proposed windows as none opening and opaque. Councillor Littman seconded the proposal.

12.      A vote was taken on the proposed additional condition and the committee agreed to the proposal unanimously.

Vote

13.      A vote was taken, and the committee agreed unanimously to grant planning permission.

14.      RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives in the report.